I think you give him too much credit. I don't think his "messaging strategy" has any design, nor is it a strategy. It's just Trump saying whatever shit bubbles to the top of what sometimes passes for a mind. And it's random and changes every four hours because he's random and changes what he believes every four hours. Or every four minutes.

I don't think he even "learned" to act like a reality show... I think this is just who he is and who he always has been, albeit with an added layer of growing dementia. He was moderately successful on reality TV not because he figured out how to be moderately successful on reality TV, but because his normal personality, style and complete lack of ethics, morality or consistency just happens to be perfect for reality TV.

It's not difficult - Iran must be balkanized if Israel is going to conquer the Middle East and expand its proper borders to "those promised by God". They will demand a regional empire beyond their borders as a "buffer zone".

The Eschatological Christian Zionists want them tp destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque and build the Third Temple so Jesus can come back. Much of the Senior Brass at DoD (or Department of War Crimes) believes in this.

Is it all absurd and crazy? Doesn't matter, it's what motivates the people with nukes.

That and Trump being blackmailed with Epstein Tapes. The news says it's specifically an audio tape of a phone call between those two.

This is what the people who want peace in the world are up against. We can't counter what we deny.

> when your investigative toolkit is journalism

Exactly. The English Majors went where other investigators have previously gone and ruled out.

The stack of blockchain, Merkle Trees, halvings, etc. show a level of insight a quantum above Hashcash.

There's noting wrong with being "quite good" but "engineering genius" is something different.

Besides, Satoshi would never have stood for not funding mining with txn fees. The BTC chain is in danger of being unmineable very soon.

I bought some paper books from Amazon in 1998 and they still work like the day I bough them.

Excellent support after 28 years.

I know I do.

Chips are tested after manufacture. A large number of them have tiny flaws in one or more areas, but work perfectly otherwise. The ones that are flawless go in the highest-end models, the others have the flawed area disabled and go in the lower-end models. Some are just rejected outright.

I think after this moronic attack, they now know they don't actually need nukes, at least not until the world loses its appetite for oil, or finds other sources that make Gulf state production irrelevant.

Also, even if this fallacious claim were true, it wouldn't actually support Arrogant-Bastard's claim, which wasn't about the state of AI now, but a claim about "intrinsic properties", meaning it would be true forever.

Nonsense. LLMs point out my mistakes all the time. And I point out theirs. At this point there's more of the latter than the former, but both absolutely happen all the time.

Not as much as you might think. Definitely not as much as at most companies.

I think it depends less on workflow and more on screen layout. If you run your browser maximized on a landscape-mode display, there's a lot of horizontal real estate that isn't very well-used, while vertical space is at a premium. So it makes sense to move tabs to the side.

On the other hand, if you don't maximize your window but keep it as narrow as possible (so you can see other windows) but just wide enough that sites render well, then you'll probably prefer them on top.

On the gripping hand, if you're like me and run your browser full-screen on a portrait mode screen, then you have gobs of vertical real-estate and tabs on top definitely makes sense.

(I have three monitors, a 32" (landscape) in the center, which is where my IDE, editors, and "focused" work lives, and a 27" portrait orientation monitor on each side. The left one has a full-screen browser window for work stuff and the right one has a full-screen browser window for personal stuff. It's fantastic.)

Mmmm.... if anything it's "what the Google engineers want emphasized". Executives at Google have surprisingly little control over technical decisions. For nearly all of Google's existence it's been an almost completely bottom-up driven company and while in the last few years management has been trying to exert more control it's a very, very slow process.

It's actually the engineering-driven culture that produces Google's infamous tendency to abandon products. Stuff gets built because some engineers think it's a good idea and convince their managers to let them run with it. Then eventually it gets boring and engineers tend to wander off to other teams in search of something interesting. If the product has managed to achieve significant userbase and/or revenue stream (and keep in mind that both are measured on Google scales; so anything less than 100M users or $1B/year is "not signficant").

In a top-down company products don't get built until they have significant executive support, which requires a fairly detailed plan, which gets executed and adjusted, and if an exec's project is in trouble it will get support. At Google products kind of wander out the door and into the world and if they happen to be a hit, great, if not, well, unless there are legally-binding contracts obligating the company to support something, it just gets shut down. Even with the projects that the executive leadership are really excited about (like AI!), their influence is mostly limited to shoveling resources at it.

Anyway, the point is that execs likely have little to no influence on Gemini training beyond setting very broad guidelines, and even those might not have much effect.

When you have a product made from leftover rejected parts the supply is guaranteed to be limited.

So you hype it as "for a limited time" and people go hog wild with FOMO.

coming soon: "The Neo is Back."

That's a strong statement. Can you explain why that isn't also true of human brains? What's the intrinsic difference?

Yeah, "LLM's are gods" and "statistical ML networks are good at finding defective code patterns" are extremely different claims.

The people who are True Believers on both extremes look pretty silly.

I appreciate really good closed captioning while having no use for chatbots. Both ends get to call me a heretic!